Before the Communists destroyed their art...
William Palmer
William Palmer wrote:
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message ws:<f5dda427.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message ws:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
>>the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will.
>
>
> That is really silly. Have you ever actually seen
> the painting I am talking about?
How could one answer that, as you've failed to identify the painting?
Serov did several paintings of Tsar Peter - which one are you talking about?
Serov was a terrific painter, in my view. And the other you've
mentioned - Lancerey was too. But I'm puzzled why you put this under
the rubric "Before the Communists destroyed their art." Your text must
have mentioned, at least, that Serov sided with the communists after the
1905 revolution. He died before the October Revolution, but there is
little doubt if he had lived beyond his 46 years that he would have been
right in there with the St. Petersburg avant garde.
Additionally, look at the providence of most of the Dagilev circle
paintings, and you'll see that these art works have been pampered and
cared for throughout the Soviet period, in the Hermitage, The Russian
Museum in St. Petersburg, and various other Russian art museums.
> You seem to think
> it is just another one of those innumerable European
> portraits glorifying various members of the royalty.
> Serov's picture is nothing like that. The painting
> gives an amazing impression of movement and
> strongly indicates a man, a real human being, of
> purpose. Suggestive of Wyeth and Pyle, it is a
> masterpiece of illustration as well as a superb
> example of Russian fine art during the period
> (just prior to the revolution) I
> was talking about.
Personally, I think Serov owes a much greater debt to Honoré Daumier
than Wyeth or Pyle. I'm surprised you didn't see this, in view of your
interest in 19th C. French art. I think a historical connection might
be possible between Serov and Daumier considering Peter's ambition to
build his little "Paris" of the swamps. Just kidding.
> Further, you seem to be
> confusing Peter the Great with Ivan the Terrible.
> The only way you can judge Peter fairly is to
> contrast him with some of the other royal rulers
> of countries during the same historical period.
> When you do that, Peter doesn't come off as so
> bad, in fact, there is much good that can be said
> about him, especially considering that when he
> began to rule Russia, in many ways it could be
> said to be still in the Dark Ages.
Yes, of course. That is why Pete imprisoned his wife, Eudoxia, and
sister, Marta, in a convent. He was such a jolly old soul, dancing on
the scaffolds while hanging all the soldiers of the Strelitz rebellion.
To save Russia from the Dark Ages. Shall I go on?
Erik
> a.g.b-p
>
>
> You
>
>>romanticise the beauty of a boneyard in the SAME way lovers of
>>Communist socialist realism (all two of them) romanticise portraits of
>>Stalin and little kids, which celebrate someone who we agree was a
>>mass murderer.
>
William Palmer
well-illustrated book on Russian art in the
ears just before the revolution. Frankly,
I am far from expert on the subject of
Russian art and I had not even heard of most
of the artists discussed. Part of that is
due to the fact that Russian art never has
had the attention it deserves in Britain and
the U. S., but some of the reason for the
neglect is that the Communists did not
like the sort of art I refer to. This
pree-revolutionary art proved far too
individualistic and imaginative,
and it did not glorify the "workers'
revolution." I suspect, too, that the
Communists either literally destroyed
these artists or, if not, simply made
sure that they could not earn a living
by their art, unless they toed the line
for Lenin. One of my favorites is
Valentin Serov, and I especially like
his "Odysseus and Nausicaa," and his
"Peter the Great." The latter picture
strikes me as funny and awesome at the
same time because of the angle in which
Peter is depicted striding along,
inspecting as shipyard, with no hat on
his head, with his walking stick with his
ministers bowed down, walking along behind
him. Serov's picture really does convey an
amazing sense of Peter the Great as a human
being, not just one of the many great
figures we read about in history. Serov
painted that picture in 1907. I also
like Yevgeny Lancray, whose "Ships from
the Age of Peter the Great" is striking.
There is something of the illustrator
(in the highest sense)in both these
artists. The pictures I have mentioned
above would rival works by U. s. illustrators
Howard Pyle and N. C. Wyeth for dynamism.
There is nothing static about them.
My own theory: In 1908 Ivan Bilibin
did a series of postcards depicting
figures from Mussorgsky's opera "Boris
Godunov." One of depicts a fierce,
menacing officer with a rifle and wicked-
looking axe of the type sometimes
described in plain English as a "head
chopping axe." This figure was a RED
cloak that dominates the picture. Was
Bilibin, in addition to illustrating for
the opera, sending a message of warning
of terrifying things to come?
But this post is getting too long and
I have barely scratched the surface
regarding the superb art that was
being created in Russia before the
revolution. Perhaps I will talk
about some other Russian artists in
a later post. In the meantime, I would
like to know if any other readers are
familiar with the period I am referring
to above. a.g.b-p.
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message news:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >>But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
> >>the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will.
> >
> >
> > That is really silly. Have you ever actually seen
> > the painting I am talking about?
>
> How could one answer that, as you've failed to identify the painting?
> Serov did several paintings of Tsar Peter - which one are you talking about?
It is just called "Peter the Great." It was done in 1907
and is tempura on paper. (64 by 86 cm). It is obviously
a painting of Peter inspecting the shipyards.
>
> Serov was a terrific painter, in my view. And the other you've
> mentioned - Lancerey was too. But I'm puzzled why you put this under
> the rubric "Before the Communists destroyed their art." Your text must
> have mentioned, at least, that Serov sided with the communists after the
> 1905 revolution. He died before the October Revolution, but there is
> little doubt if he had lived beyond his 46 years that he would have been
> right in there with the St. Petersburg avant garde.
Yes, but a lot of artists who sided with the revolution
were destroyed too, at least in the creative sense. That
should be no mystery. After all, the revolution soon
pervaded every aspect of Russian life. There would
have been tremendous psychological pressures on artists
and writers to produce works, not that they were inspired
to do, but which instead would "serve the workers"
(meaning have the party's approval). As a result,
a great many creative geniuses were reduced to being
hacks--and nobody had to put a gun to their heads, either.
>
> Additionally, look at the providence of most of the Dagilev circle
> paintings, and you'll see that these art works have been pampered and
> cared for throughout the Soviet period, in the Hermitage, The Russian
> Museum in St. Petersburg, and various other Russian art museums.
\
Yes, because the Russian communists--give the devil his
due--were far more intelligent and responsible in their
behavior than the Chinese Red Guard and the Taliban. The
Russian communists were generally careful to preserve things
of value, knowing that they could be used in many ways, such
as for art exchanges, etc.--things which would lend prestige
and legitimacy to the communist government.
>
> You seem to think
> > it is just another one of those innumerable European
> > portraits glorifying various members of the royalty.
> > That picture is nothing like that. The painting
> > gives an amazing impression of movement, and
> > strongly suggests a man, a real human being, of
> > purpose. Suggestive of Wyeth and Pyle, it is a
> > masterpiece of illustration as well as a superb
> > example of Russian fine art during the period I
> > was talking about.
>
> Personally, I think Serov owes a much greater debt to Honoré Daumier
> than Wyeth or Pyle. I'm surprised you didn't see this, in view of your
> interest in 19th C. French art.
Well, maybe I was careless in my phrasing. I did not
mean to give the impression that Serov was actually
influenced by N. C. Wyeth or Pyle, since I do not know
that to be the case. What I meant was that it seemed
remarkable to me how Serov's training and experience
led him to a place where he was doing fine art which
had all the remarkable elements of Wyeth and Pyle at
their best.
I think a historical connection might
> be possible between Serov and Daumier
Don't you think it is likely that Sevov was
influenced by many of the same 19th century
artists who incluenced N. C. Wyeth and Pyle?
considering Peter's ambition to
> build his little "Paris" of the swamps. Just kidding.
>
> Further, you seem to be
> > confusing Peter the Great with Ivan the Terrible.
> > The only way you can judge Peter fairly is to
> > contrast him with some of the other royal rulers
> > of countries during the same historical period.
> > When you do that, Peter doesn't come off as so
> > bad, in fact, there is much good that can be said
> > about him, especially considering that when he
> > began to rule Russia, in many ways it could be
> > said to be still in the Dark Ages.
>
> Yes, of course. That is why Pete imprisoned his wife, Eudoxia, and
> sister, Marta, in a convent. He was such a jolly old soul, dancing on
> the scaffolds while hanging all the soldiers of the Strelitz rebellion.
> To save Russia from the Dark Ages. Shall I go on?
You are not really being fair. In the first place,
when you go back a couple of hundred years or more,
almost all powerful royal rulers could be rightly
accused of committing or at least countenancing all
sorts of wrongs, some of them very ugly, and I don't
care if you are talking about Lois the 14th, Frederick
the Great, or George III of England. However, you also
have to look at what the ruler started with (regarding
the condition of his country) and what was eventually
accomplished during his rule. Peter certainly had
far more on the ball than George III, and I think
an interesting debate might focus on who was the
greatest ruler (judged by his positive accomplishments):
Lois the 14th, Frederick the Great, or Peter the Great.
Both the world itself, and the countries those three
figures ruled, were so steeped in ignorance and bigotry
that it would be impossible to accomplish much of
anything at all without killing a lot of people in
the process. However many mistakes they made, these
rulers were all--in one way or another--trying to
accomplish important things to benefit their countries--
in the face of massive resitance (mental as well as
physical) from elements at home and abroad.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose, upstairs)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
a.g.b-p.
Mikhail Medved
> well-illustrated book on Russian art in the
> ears just before the revolution. Frankly,
> I am far from expert on the subject of
> Russian art and I had not even heard of most
> of the artists discussed. Part of that is
> due to the fact that Russian art never has
> had the attention it deserves in Britain and
> the U. S., but some of the reason for the
> neglect is that the Communists did not
> like the sort of art I refer to. This
> pree-revolutionary art proved far too
> individualistic and imaginative,
> and it did not glorify the "workers'
> revolution." I suspect, too, that the
> Communists either literally destroyed
> these artists or, if not, simply made
> sure that they could not earn a living
> by their art, unless they toed the line
> for Lenin. One of my favorites is
> Valentin Serov, and I especially like
> his "Odysseus and Nausicaa," and his
> "Peter the Great."
It's better if you describe your impressions rather than give a
treatise on "communism" or Russian history. The picture "Peter the
Great" has always been on display in Tretyakov Gallery, during
communist or post-communist rule. Go there and see that one and many
other great works by Serov. The spirit of art may have been destroyed,
not the artifacts themselves.
As I was told, the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg took out of the
closet many works of the turn of the century which were kept in
storage, because of some political incorrectness towards the Soviet
regime. I haven't yet been there but it's no doubt worth a visit.
Medved.
ldm...@hotmail.com
http://www.1953.ru/murder.html
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message news:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Edward G. Nilges
Stalin died in bed, but the posting is in Roosian and I do not speak
da Roosian.
eugenekent
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02122...@posting.google.com...
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Way back in the 50s I remember reading somewhere that he was smothered
with a pillow.
eugenekent
Don't you know that is why Yeltsen took to Vodka?
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3E0BCC0F...@bellsouth.net...